Limiting when officers can use lethal force doesn’t hurt their safety or the public’s.

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors’ 3-2 vote Wednesday to oppose a bill by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, to adopt a higher standard for when police officers can use lethal force came after emotional testimony about protecting officers who have to make difficult, split-second, life-or-death decisions. Critics also argue that changing the present policy of allowing lethal force from when it is “reasonable” to when it is “necessary” will put officers and the public at risk.

But if Supervisors Dianne Jacob, Jim Desmond and Kristin Gaspar opposed Assembly Bill 392 because of these reasons, it can’t be defended as an evidence-based position. Also Wednesday, San Francisco officials reported that not only had police used force in 30% fewer cases three years after adopting reforms like Weber’s, the city hadn’t had a shooting by an officer in nearly 11 months. This was not accompanied by any decrease in police or public safety. Stockton and Seattle saw similar results.

Because the debate about police use of force is tied to fraught issues involving race and law enforcement, those on both sides show a righteous streak in their arguments. But the debate should hinge on the positive records of departments that have moved to a higher standard — not heartfelt anecdotes about unnecessary shootings or persecuted officers. Weber has the facts on her side.